Mr. Jim Breslin:

It is essential that we continue to try to do what Mr. McCallion described, although it is very hard to break through on something as distressing as this with the factual information that was mentioned. I will make a suggestion. As we have gone through this issue over recent weeks, and the committee has played a valuable role in that, we have tended in our discussions to intersperse the public health and public interest explanation of this issue with, quite legitimately, other questions related to scrutiny and accountability. It is hard to have the public health and public interest message communicate itself in a situation where we are also doing the historical record and the scrutiny and accountability. Both are absolutely legitimate and I wonder, and it might not involve the players here at all, if there is any way we could give some collective thought to a more concentrated public health and public interest discussion on explanation and trying to put that out. The nature of the programme is such that we also must talk about the public interest and public health dimensions of sustaining the programme. I absolutely recognise the need for accountability but-----